Building a small army to take over the world and... leave everybody alone.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Ron Paul, Bipartisanship's Quiet Champion

By: Ryan Jaroncyk, THL Contributor

More and more Americans are growing tired of the bitter partisanship that has come to define our nation's politics. Republicans hate the Democrats, and Democrats hate the Republicans.

George W. Bush was supposed to be a "uniter, not a divider," yet he ended up bitterly dividing a nation. President Obama was supposed to heal those divisions, yet the nation seems even more polarized than ever under his leadership so far.

There is however, one individual who continues to buck the trend. This individual has demonstrated an uncanny ability to unite diverse political factions on a slew of critical issues. If there was ever a model for effective and principled bipartisanship, this individual fits the mold.

Most recently, this individual has united over 300 Republicans and Democrats on monetary policy reform. This individual has united two Democrats and two Republicans on potential war legislation. This individual has united diverse individuals, from the right and left, to consider an alternative strategy in Afghanistan.

Who is this mystery individual? Dr. Ron Paul. His Audit the Fedbill, H.R 1207 has garnered the support of every single House Republican, as well as over 100 Democrats in both the House and Senate.

On Afghanistan, he has joined one other Republican and two Democrats, so far, in proposing legislation for an immediate withdrawal. In addition, his concerns about the war in Afghanistan have inspired bipartisan criticism of the protracted effort.

For example, conservative commentator, George Will has issued a call for a much more limited and narrowly focused mission. Conservative Ret. Lieutenant Colonel, Ralph Peters has argued against further troop increases and has recommended far more limited objectives.

Richard Haas, a former Bush State Department official, has questioned the wisdom of committing more troops to an open-ended occupation. Robert Baer, a former CIA field operative, has called for a different strategy.

On the Democratic side, Vice President Biden appears to be offering significant resistance to more troops, and Arianna Huffington, the uber-"liberal", wrote an elegant, thought-provoking piece questioning the necessity of more troops and open-ended nation building.

On two of the most critical issues to our national security, Dr. Ron Paul has united individuals on the right and the left. On the issue of saving the U.S. Dollar, he has earned the support of over 200 Republicans and over 100 Democrats thus far. On Afghanistan, he has served as a catalyst for sparking a truly bipartisan critique of an eight-year war with no end in sight.

Now, many people disagree with Ron Paul. But, like or dislike him, his principled stands and ability to unite Republicans and Democrats on key issues are a breath of fresh air in a world dominated by rancorous, ineffective partisanship.

I think that's exactly why Ron Paul successfully unites such a broad coalition of people who are usually at odds with each other- he forces people out of the context and framework of their statist premises.

"Infrastructure repair would provide quality employment throughout the nation. There is a pretense that government must either borrow or tax to get the money for such projects. But it is a well enough known, that the government can directly create the money needed and spend it into circulation for such projects, without inflationary results.

"First, incorporate the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury.

"Third, spend new money into circulation on infrastructure, including education and healthcare."

Ron Paul (2009, pp. 204-205) writes:

"While a gold standard would be a wonderful thing, we shouldn’t wait for one before we end the Fed… An end to the money-creating power and a transfer of remaining oversight authority from the Fed to the Treasury would be marvelous steps in the right direction."

So we see that Ron Paul’s proposal is essentially the same as that of Stephen Zarlenga and his man in Congress, Dennis Kucinich. Like Paul, Zarlenga also believes that a gold standard is a wonderful thing, provided that it does not have to actually be implemented. Since Paul has no concrete plans for implementing a gold standard, he and Zarlenga are united in their desire to incorporate the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury as quickly as possible.

Paul supports the gold standard. Zarlenga is strongly opposed to the gold standard. Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce - James Garfield. The Bank of England controls the Federal Reserve, and the BOE also controls the volume of Gold. We do not want England controlling our volume of money any longer. They already control the FED. We do not want to bring on a gold backed currency and allow them to control our currency again. Ron Paul supports those who run the Federal Reserve Private Centralized Bank. Zarlenga stronly opposes the "Gold Standard". They are not the same, they are in fact direct opposites of each other. What kind of horse crap are you trying to hand us here?